
Class Ll >?b 

Book 37^ 



AN 



EXAMINATION 



OF THE. 



EXPEDIENCY AND CONSTITUTIONALITY 

%■ OF 

PROHIBITING SLAVERY 

IN 

THE STATE OF MISSOURI. 



Homo sura, et humani nihil a me alienum puto. 



BY MARCUS. Y^" '^ 



NEW-YORK: 

PUBLISHED BY C. WILEY Sc CO. No 3 WALL-STREET 
J. Seymour, printer. 

18J0. 



iS> 



<>y' 



^ 



J./i^t^^ 



^^/ 



AN EXAMINATION, ^c. 



A MEASURE, in which the republic is more deeply concerned, 
thai, in any which has been discussed since the adoption of 
the Federal Constitution, is abou: to be brought before our na- 
tional representatives. 

It will then be decided, whether Congress will give its sanc- 
tion to the extension of a system which is repugnant to the 
fundatnental principles of a republic. 

During the last session of this body, the inhabitants of Mis- 
souri pethioned for admission into the Union. As usual, the 
law authorising the erection of the territory into a state, was 
amended by annexing several conditions to the required per- 
mission. After several minor amendments had been pro- 
posed and adopted, a gentleman from New-York moved, that 
the further introduction of slavery or involuntary servitude be 
prohibited, except for the punislnuent of crimes, whereof the 
party shall have been fully convicted. 

This amendment was warmly opposed by the southern 
members. They exclaimed that it was unconstitutional, ap- 
pealed to those local prejudices, which, unfortunately for the 
wehare of tiiis republic, have too great influence upon the con- 
duct r>f statesmen ; and in the Senate, where the states are not 
represented according to the population or wealth, succeeded 
in reje<:ting the amendment. 

Since then the advocates of slavery have been unusually 
active; private interest has enlisted many as zealous support- 
ers of the system, and it is necessary that disinterested men, if 
they would not sec the general good sacrificed to local inter- 
ests, shouhl rouse themselves in defence of the principles of 
freedom. 

The clamours of a few interested individuals must not be 
mistaken for the general sei^timent of the comnumity. 

Twelve states, coutaining four-sevenths of the whole popu- 
lation, and two-thirds of the white citi/.ens, iiave clearly ex- 
pressed their opinions against slavery by making laws for its 
abolition ; and even in the slave states, if tlie question were put 
to tiie electors, Shall slavery be abolished, and the blacks ex- 
ported .'' 1 sincerely believe, if no arts were used to influence 
the passions and bias the judgment, that a majority would a>i- 
swer in the affirmative. 



That answer is prevented, at present, only by the fear that 
society would be overturned by tlie freedom of so many igno- 
rant degraded beings. 

This objection does not apply to the proposed restriction, 
which is to take effect only in future. A southern freeman, 
who is not an owner, is in reality injured by slavery : he 
cannot enter into competition with tliat man who has 50 or 100 
workmen labouring for him, without any compensation except 
food and lodging, and those too of the worst kind. 

We may, therefore, add to the above mentioned majority, all 
those in the southern states who are not slave holders. Even 
many of these slave holdei's profoundly regret the existence of 
slavery, and express their determination to emancipate their 
slaves, the moment that it can be done consistently with their 
happiness and the good of societ3% 

I do not deny that many are zealously opposed to this re- 
striction, but their opinions being dictated by interest, are to be 
regarded only so far as they do not oppose greater interests. 
This, however, is not a question on which gentlemen should 
vote merely with a view to please their constituents : it is in- 
timately connected with the welfare of the whole union, and it 
is proper, before mevibers have dismissed their doubts, in the 
warmth of debate, that they should revolve the subject in their 
cooler moments, carefully discriminate between local interests 
and the common good, and, actuated by an enlightened policy, 
decide without that exfjuisite care and tenderness for their po- 
pularity, as if they considered it the spinal marrow of the body 
politic. But there are some who have really conscientious 
scruples with regard to the propriety or constitutionality of 
this restriction. To such the following remarks will be ad- 
dressed : Jn the first place, I shall inquire into the lawfulness 
and policy of slavery. Man was evidently designed by his 
Creator to be free from all restraint, except that imposed by 
natural and conventional law. The perfect harmony of his 
intellectual nature, his passions, prompting him to action ; hi;! 
reason, superintending and controlling the passions ; his 
jiidguicnt, discriminating between right and wrong; his con- 
science, punishing him for the least violation of that perfeci 
moral law, which is so adiwirably suited to direct him to hap- 
piness, all [)rove him to be the onlv free and accountable ere 
ated being. Slavery of any kind dcsiroys his acconniabilitv.. 
deprives him of that happiness rfsuhing from the well perform- 
ance of moral duties, and frustrates the cud of his existence, 
("'rom these ju-einises, we m;'.y conclude that all men are born 
wiili a right to freedom. But as man is helpless in inf mcy, his 
parents protect and govern him until liis judgnicnt becomes 
j>ufiicienlly matured to direct his steps. 



5 



In a rude state of society nature dictates the proper time for 
separation; but in civili/ed life a certain age is des-iunaied 
by law for the minor to take npon himself the responsibilities 
of manhood. 

Even if it were otherwise, parental power does not extend to 
the perpetual deprivation of the liberty of children. It is 
delegated to the parent, for a special purpose, to keep the child 
from harm during the infancy of reason, and it ceases to exist 
with the occasion whicii gave it birth. 

From the same premises we may conclude, that an absolute 
power over them cannot be rightfully acquired by any other 
person, for they cannot sell themselves to perpetual bondfige. 
Society itself has no right to condemn them to slavery, unless 
they forfeit their liberty by their crimes. Now it is not pre- 
tended that negroes are criminal, or that they ever consented 
to the deprivation of their liberty. Therefore it follows, that 
all authority exercised over slaves is usinped in direct viola- 
tion of their natural rights, and in disobedience of that I'lVit and 
great command of God, that we should do to others, as we 
would that they should do unto us. 

I have adduced these arguments, that we may come to the 
examination of this question with a strong conviction in our 
minds of the unlawfulness of slavery ; that slave-holders may 
distinctly understand, that every year they wrongfully deprive 
their negroes of the annual proHt upon their work. 

Would to Heaven that this fraud or dishonesty, which, by a 
strange perversity of Justice, is under the protection of law, 
was the least of the charges against negro slavery. 

It is accompanied with oppression and cruelty, unexampled 
even by the heathen slave-holders of antiquity ; the Greeks and 
Romans treated their slaves with comparative humanity. An- 
cient slavery owed its existence to the absence of the conven- 
tional law of nations : after conquering a people, the victors 
were obliged, from motives of caution, to enslave them, trea- 
ties not being considered as sufiicient security. These ^l:lves 
were employed only as domestic servants, and often conliiled 
in as friends. 

Even the cruelty of the Spartans was less odious. They 
could plead as an excuse the provisions of the constitution, 
which prohibited labour, and the helots increased so fast, thai 
policy dictated their destruction. It was oidy death at last. A 
single blow was the beginning and end of their sutlcrings ; for 
while life lasted they were treated as men. 

But our inhumanity being caused by avarice, has no such 
e.xcuse, and is far less scrupulous. It does honour to its source. 
It calculates with the utmost nicrty how f:ir cruelly may be 



6 

proiitably carried. We urge slaves lo labour beyond their 
strength by stripes and torture. 

We buy them as beasts. We treat them as beasts. Our 
thanksgivings for tlie nation's prosperity are not so loud as 
the groans a:) 1 curses of our slaves. The foundation stones 
of our planters' palaces are cemented with the sweat, mingled 
with the blood, of negroes ; while we, with this charge of 
injustice and cruelty branded on our fronts, dare to raise our 
hands to heaven, and beseech the God of justice and mercy to 
preside over the destinies of the nation. 1 know that gentle- 
men from the South often say that the slaves are treated well, 
and that these accounts of cruelty are mere misrepresentations. 
It may indeed be true, that such men, men vvnose minds are 
eultivated and benevolent, treat tlieir household negroes with 
kindness and humanity. Tlie great mass of their slaves, those 
who cultivate the soil, are left to the care of their overseers. But 
do we believe that even this is generally the case ? Do Ave be- 
lieve that men will not abuse uncontrolled power.'* When di- 
recting men of the same complexion, while the law stands rea- 
dy to punish the least invasion of right, how difficult do we 
find it to restrain our anger at the stupidity of our inferiors. 
Hov/ often are courts called upon to redress the injuries in- 
flicted by men upon their fellows.'* Is human nature different 
in slave countries ? Or does the absence of restraint teach mo- 
deration t Will men show more kindness towards those whose 
ignorance is called wilfulness, than towards men of the same 
colour.'* Or when no law punishes injustice, when public 
opinion does not rebuke the exercise of the malignant passions, 
when the complaints of the sufiering are silenced or c(»r,/ined 
within the bounds of a plantation, wlsen all sympathy between 
master and slave is destroyed by education, pride, and the 
many contests of outraged humanity against relentless tyran- 
ny, will they not give free scope to revenge, lust, and al! ^e 
brutal passions nourished by long unpunished indulgence, and 
embitter the lives of their miserable slaves by pcts which hu- 
manity shudders to witness ? I appeal to experience. Look 
through the West Indies, and ask yourselves if my represen- 
tations be false.'* Look al the majority of negroes at the 
South. See their dov/ncast, listless looks. Incirious, devoid 
of all interest except ni their persona; feelings, they now and 
then steal a fearful glance ui dieir overseer. See them sweat- 
ing under their burthens, ignorant of all that concerns them as 
innnortal beings, cringing and trembling when before their 
white superiors. Or vi>.'vv them \y\iM>; on the b;ire ground, un- 
der a shed like so many cauie, and then svay that these men 
arc liapj)y. Compare these evicknices of misery with the cheer- 



fill looks of onr free blacks, and doubt, if you can, that their 
unhappiiiess is owitipr to their slavery. 

Tell me not of iheir joy when released from work ; of their 
songs and their dances. It is only the joy of a man freetl f.om 
torture. It is the pleasure of a sick man in the intervals of 
pain. Antl you cruelly mock them when you tell them that 
they are happy. 

Reader, are you now convinced of the injustice and cruelty 
of slavery.'' or will you go still further, examine tlie planters' 
books, and seethe horrid waste of heulth and life.^ Will you 
visit the prison-house, and learn all its cruel secrets ? Will you 
go on ship-board and witness its dreadful effects on the slave 
trade? For it is undeniable that slavery is its only and suffi- 
cient cause. Or will you travel to Africa, and see that vast 
continent distracted by civil wars; the human bloodhound 
huntinp- his prey alo.jg the const, or burstinc:, in the dead of 
night, into the hut of the peaceful negro, and, in spite of the 
most heart-rending shrieks and moans, tearing the parents 
from their helpless oflspriug, who are left to perisli. 

It is not necessary that I should enter into that painful de- 
tail. The southern planters are not charged with the crime of 
man-stealing: but I do solemnly charge many of them with 
abetting and encouraging it, by purchasing those blacks who 
have been kidnapped. 

Notwithstanding the exertions of our own and the British 
governments, this infamous traffic in human flesii, which, in 
the celebrated words of William Pitt, " has bound down this 
great continent in bloodshed, ignorance, and misery,'' still ex- 
ists, and is encouraged by the demand for slaves. 

During the year 1818, accordmg to the uncontradicted 
statement of a member of the last Congress, 14,000 slaves were 
imported into the United States. 

But setting aside all considerations of justice and humanity, 
we condemn sla;very, because, 

Istly. It impoverishes the country. 

2dly. It has an immoral tiiulency. 

3dly. It endangers the peace of tlie republic. 

4thly. It paralyses our arm in time of war. 

Sthly. It is contrary to republican principles, and stains our 
national honour. 

Istly. If two states, of equal popula'.ion and equal nntural 
advantages, were not equally wcr.hhy, in conseciuence of some 
peculiar law in the poorer state, which discouraged ihe exer- 
tions of a part of its subjects, we should say that that law in>- 
poverished the state. That frrmien, possessing grra'.i r intt lli- 
gence, and feeling more interest ii» tlifir occupations, will 
labour to more advantage than slaves, will not be <lcnied. 



8 

The diflcrence between llie productive labour of tiie former 
and the latter may be fairly estimated at one quarter. This 
fact we learn from the experience of planters who have made 
the experiment, by permitting the blacks to labour for them- 
selves, after their tasks are performed. When they had confi- 
dence in their owner's honour, and felt assured that no harder 
task would be imposed, they would finish their former day's 
work between 3 and 4 o'clock. 

This is not the only loss : where slaves are employed, one 
man out of twenty must act as overseer. Here then is 30 per 
cent, of prednctive labour entirely lost. 

In ISIO, there were 1,200,000 slaves in the United States. 
So that the annual gain, if these men had been free, would 
have been equal to the labour of 400,000 persons. 

Let us try the truth of this principle by referring to the ac- 
tual condition of the States. 

Tlie Eastern States are less favoured by nature than the 
Southern, the soil less fertile, the climate more inhospitable; 
but the national wealth is greater : that is, when the popula- 
tion is nearly equal. Compare, for instance, Massachusetts or 
New-York with Virginia, Connecticut with South Carolina, 
or New-Hampshire with Georgia, and the valuation of proper- 
ty will be much greater in the Eastern States. 

In 1810 the manufactures of Massachusetts amounted to 

$25,630,644 
Those of Virginia - - - 15,263,473 

Connecticut . . - - 7,771,928 ^ 

South Carolina - - - - 3,623,595 

New-Hampshire - - - - 5,225,045 

Georgia _ > - - - 3,658,431 

In 1817 the exports from Massachusetts exceeded by near 
$2,000,000 those from any southern state. 

In 1815 the net revenue from that state exceeded the total 
revenue iVoui all the states south of Maryland, and the revenue 
from New-York nearly trebled that from Massachusetts.* 
This superiority in national wealth is not to be attributed to 
the inferior number of blacks in the eastern states. New- 
York, wliich has more than 50,000 blacks, surpassed Massa- 
chusetts in the valuation of property, in the amount of the 
manufactories, and of the revenue in the same years; and in 
New-Jerse}', a state by no means favoured by nature, with 
one-tenth of jicr population black, the amount of property 
and nianuf;?ciures exceeded the same lists in either ol the 
states of Kentucky, Georgia, South or North Carolina. The 
objection, that blacks will not work unless compelled, is 

* 'lliesc years are average j-cars: they arc tlic years in the Gazetteer, and 
lot selected for this argument. 



i 



equally true of all men. No person labours from choice. 
Some are urged by one motive, some by anotlier. Love 
of consideration and wealth prompts the ambitious, and the 
fear of cold and hunger drives the indolent to work. \N e 
find that in our own city the free blacks are equally industri- 
ous, and more provident, than tlie lower order of whites. 
They feel an interest in society, and fi-eely labour lo increase 
the national wealth. From this statement the conclusion is 
inevitable, that slavery impoverishes a nation. 

2dly. It demoralizes the people. So great a number of ig- 
norant, degraded beings must necessarily afiect the whole mass 
of society. When the lowest order of citizens is very ignorant 
and flepraved, the corruption gradually seizes tlie adjoining 
members, until the nobler parts are invaded, and the disease 
pervades the whole social body. 

Besides the natural tendency of absolute power over our 
fellow beings, to corrupt thi.' Imman heart by pride, and to 
harden it by eaiiy f;imili;nity v.'ih scenesof cruelty ; it udords 
too many opportunities to gratify the licentious passions. 
The female slave is prevented by no fear of scorn or loss of 
reputation, froui gratifying the desires of her master. Brt^ught 
lip in eiii le ignorance of the obligations of morality JU)d reli- 
gion, knowing no hw but her master's will, it is not surprising 
that she is easily persuaded to overstep the bounds of n odest}', 
and 10 consent to acts at which decency recoils. And when 
female modesty is destroyed, when that silken chain which re- 
strains the violent passi^ms of man within due bounds is bro- 
ken, his licentiousness is completely uncontrolled. 

3uiy. I now proceed to consider the effects of slavery upon 
the domestic quiet of the Republic. The human mind is so 
constituted, that the cause of pain or misery is always regarded 
with aver>ion. Men invariably dislike those who have made 
them unhappy. If their uidiappiness is caused by undeserved 
oppression, if abused power rendeis them miserable, \hv hu- 
man slave, of whatever conjplexion, whose rights are trampled 
upon, while his passions exist, and his nature is unchanf^ed, 
must hate his tyrant, and endeavour to redress liis wrongs. 
He may curse in scciet, but he will take vengeance openly.^ 
Many are the melanclioly instances, scattered on the page of 
history, of the dreadful vengeance inlllcttd by slaves upon their 
masters. Every age has added testimony to this great moral 
truth, that man must respect the rights of man. 

The rebellion of the domestic slaves of the Scyiliians; the 
Spartans often called into the field to chastise the Helots j 
Rome nearly conquered by a servile army ; the insurrections 
of Wat Tyler and Jack Cade in England, and of the J^erfs in 
Flanders and France, in the middle of the 13lh and Uih cen- 

B 



JO 

Uines; the civil wars in Jamaica, St. Domingo, and in the 
Carribce Islands, and the many projected risings in tiie south- 
ern states, all prove that slavery is dangerous to the safety of 
a nation. They are so many warning voices, crying aloud to 
the southern planters, You are on the brink of ruin. 

Such, however, is the blind perversity of men, that gentle- 
men from the south, in argument, assert that there is no dan- 
ger of negro rebellions, though the}' act as if they apprehended 
an immediate rising. 

Laws are made to prevent the instruction of the blacks. 
The free people of colour are driven from the state of Georgia 
by law*, and the whole system of policy shows a great fear of 
immediate danger. 

With these facts staring them in the face, they still assert that 
the slaves would not rebel against tlieir masters. They feel 
no personal resentments. This is not, cannot be true, with 
regard to the great body of negroes. I do not doubt that 
many arc attached to their owners, and would not willingly 
injure them or their families. They may have no personal 
resentments to gratify. 

But general insurrections are not caused by personal feel- 
ings. The seeds of discontent must be sown far and wide. A 
general, deep-rooted aversion must be felt by the negroes, and 
is felt, not against their masters only, but against white men, 
for the contumely, oppression, and wrongs, that have been 
heaped upon all of their unfortunate colour. It is this social 
resentment that causes general revolts. Freed from selfish 
motives, it. becomes a holy anger against injustice. Men are 
then linked together by the strongest bonds of passion. It 
matters not, that owing to peculiar circumstances, individuals 
oftJie same class are exempt from the common fate. They 
look around them, they see men doomed to misery for possess- 
ing the same complexion ; and that sympathy which connects 
nations and classes of society, compels them to espouse tiie 
conunon cause. On such occasions they foci no fear at the 
disproportion of numbers. They owe no duty to govern- 
ment ; society has no claim upon them. They only listen to 
the voice of nature, calling upon them to assert their violated 
rights, and with one consent they rise in open rebellion. 

Some, prompted by allection, endeavour to save their mas- 
ters from the general massacre, but the elTort is unavailing. 
His complexion is evidence of his guilt, and the savage roar of 
vengeance triumphs over the pleadings of gratitude and love. 

It is uiisal',' lo argue, because all negro plots in the Southern 
Stales have been defeated, that dangc does not exist, and that 

* In tli.it state tlie slavns arc debarred by law from instruction in tlu' princi- 
ylee of the Chrifetiaii rcii^iuu. 



n 

a rising of llie slaves would be more fatal (o tlicm than to the 
wlirtes. 

In the two contiguous States of South Carolina and Geor- 
gia, there are 309,739 slaves, being nearly equal to the nmu- 
iter of whites. If these blacks should enter into a oombina- 
lion against their masters, they must enter the contest with a 
wonderful superiority. Habituated to labour and hardships 
from their infancy, their physical powers would be greater 
than those of the neighbouring whites. To this may bo add- 
ed the moral superiority given by a just cause. In effective 
numbers they would f\»r surpass the white citizens of the same 
States. The whole number of the militia of South (Carolina 
and Georgia, according to the returns, was, in 1817, 59,GSG ; 
and I am inclined to think that this far exceeds the truth. For 
every 5th white person is returned ; whereas in the .\liddle 
and Eastern States, only every 9th person is enrolkd in the 
militia. At the beginning of such a contest, a great part of 
the whites would be cut oft' without any warning. Many of 
the rest would be employed in removing the women and chil- 
dren, while the blacks could send their whole number into the 
field at once : even tiie black women, from their hardy habits, 
would be as dangerous as the men. 

As to discipline, the militia and the negroes, at the com- 
mencement of the rebellion, would be about equal. The li- 
mited military knowledge of a raw mililia-man, only confuses 
him in the day of battle. He often finds himself vvrong, feels 
conscious that he is in an error, but wants the ability to rcctifv 
it. While the negro, trusting to riature, would gain many 
battles before the whites could become disciplined. Arms ar»; 
scattered through the country, and, in such cases, are always 
in the power of the party that strikes the first blow. 

The only superiority of the whites woidd consist in their 
intelligence, which would be fully compensated bv the greater 
devotion of the blacks to their cause. They would be lighting 
for freedom, and we for slavery; and in such contest, this 
heavy sin 

" Would sit likr lead within our snldirri-' Imsoiu'^, 
"And weigh them down to luin, sliimir, auu deaih."' 

The result would be inevitable. The inhabitants of those 
two states would be destroyed, aufl the rcbrirKUi <(ud(l b(.' quell- 
ed only by the militia of the eastern and middle slates. 

But'suppose the insurrection to be general ; that the ne- 
groes of Alaryland, Virginia, Georgia, North and South (Jaro- 
lina, should c'onibine together in a revolt ; that these adjoiniug 
states, containing a populaliotj of2,r>7y,000 persons, of whoui 
i ,034,000 are people of colour, should be ravaged by a servile 



12 

r^■at ; could our united efforts entirely quell the revolt ? Two- 
thirds of the white popul.>l va would be destrojed before any 
assistance could reach them. Kentucky , Tennessee, Mississip- 
pi, Louisiana, and Alabama, would need the body of their 
militia to preserve quiet at home, an 1 the whole burthen of the 
contest njust fall upon *he middle and eastern states. The 
whole militia of these states amount only to 500,000 men, of 
whom not above one half can be brought into the field. This 
I am jn stifled in saying- by past experience. And in such a 
general revolt, the negroes could bring against them as many. 
Without, however, trusting to these details, it maybe confi- 
dently asserted, that such an insurrection would be the most 
dreadful calamity that could befol the repubhc. 

It may be objected, that it would not be possible for slaves 
to form so extensive a plot without discovery. But we knovv^ 
that in Mexico and in St. Domingo revolts of nearly eqaal 
magnitude were planned, and in the latter place successfully 
executed, by men of the same description. The unhappy vic- 
tims of that rebellion felt the most perfect security, until it was 
too late to escape. Let us not be betrayed by a foolish confi- 
dence into a situation equally hopeless. 

The fourth objection against slavery is, that it weakens the 
nation in war. But it is unnecessary to prove that a nation, 
one-sixth of whose subjects are discontented and rebellious, is 
unfit to enter into a contest with a foreign enemy. After the 
most impartial and careful consideration of the situation ol the 
southern states, 1 feel the most decided conviction, that they 
would find it necessary to employ all their citizens and re- 
sources in guarding against those rebellions which an active 
enemy m.ight exc.te among their slaves. 

5thly. It is contrary to the principles of the republic, and 
stains our national honour. 

One of the clearest and most undeniable maxims of a repub- 
lic is, that every citizen should bear a share of the public bur- 
then, proportionate to the protection necessary to be allbrued 
him. The citizens of the United Stntes a.<- all liable to do 
militarv dutv in tlse common defence. All ihe staie>, except 
the slave states, having no domestic enemies, can employ their 
militia in distant service. But the negro population do not 
contribute any thing to the public defence; ihey rather aid the 
enemy, by employing a orreat number of the state troops in 
preserving domestic quiet. The slave states consequently can- 
not contribute their due proj ortion to the public service. 

Again : the grand principles to which our fathers appealed 
in th'^ beginning of the contest with Great Britain were, that 
nil men are created eq al, and endowed by ti:eir Creator with 
certain unalienable rights ; that among these are life, liberty, 



13 

and the pursuit of happiness. Upon the truth of those prin- 
ciples all their hopes rested, and plainly perceiving the in- 
consistency of fighting against England for violating their li- 
berties, while they enslaved the unhappy Africans, the first 
time they met in Congress, 1774, they agreed to discontinue, 
and on the 6th day of April, 1776, expressly prohibited the 
iaiportation of slaves. These resolutions express the opinion 
of the sage patriot fathers of the Constitution, that slavery 
is inconsistent with republican principles. 

The enlightened Europeans, who are well inclined towards 
our republic, are continually shocked at the glaring incon- 
sistency of our conduct and principles. 

They cannot conceive how men can reconcile slavery with 
the maxim, that all men are free and equal. 

They even doubt whether our boasts of freedom be true. 
Prejudiced men, hostile to the principles of civil and religious 
liberty, exult in reiterating the charge, that the American Re- 
public is the only civilized government that tolerates slavery 
within her boundaries ; and in spite of all that we can say in 
excuse, it is a foul stain upon our national character. The 
only answer that can be made to it is, th.it slaves were intro- 
duced to gratify the cupidity of the English proprietors of the 
colonies, and we shall lose the benefit of that palliation, 
when we solemnly adopt the principle in our national legis- 
lu.ture, after solemn debate, v;iihout the most urgent neces- 
sity. 

But to what purpose are these arguments adduced? We 
all know that slavery is an evil, and we wish to find a re- 
medy : why nnt propose one, instead of reasoning against a 
shadow, which nobody defends ? 

Because the momeni that a remedy is proposed, an advo- 
cate of the system brings forward some of the arguments that 
I have attempted to confute. It was proper that 1 should point 
out the evil, before I considered the remedies. Besides, I 
wished to show that on a question where so much feeling and 
warmth has been manifested by our southern brethren, it was 
not an inconsiderable thing that made us difler with them. 

I proceed to consider the remedies. 

Colonization on some foreign coast, though well intended, 
is not an adequate remedy. Toliiic and humane, ris it un- 
doubtedly is, to provide a place to which the captured slaves 
can be sent, yet when proposed as a suliicient remedy for the 
evils of slavery, sound reason must reject it. The whole 
navy and revenue of the United States would not suffice to 
transport the blacks of this country one half so fast as they 
increase in the natural way. 

U is well to send all those who arc willing to go, to a co- 



Ii 



14 

iony, but that i,^ not sufficient to extirpate slavery — some- 
ihiiii^ more is required. We must, consequently, resort to 
emancipation and instruction — these will cure the evil ; but 
individual emanci|)ati(>n will not be sufficient — the law must 
aid the work. Men AvitI not voluntarily relinquish the in- 
tercut they may have in the services of others ; christians and 
moral men may labour for ever and in vain to persuade planters 
to colonize or emancipate thcirslavcs. The winds will calm 
at your bidding; ; the miser's heart will overflow with charity ; 
the wolf will lay down with the lan)b; and then, but not till 
then, will the slave-holder, prompted by the gentle dictates of 
mercy, free his negroes from bondage. This great work 
must be effected by other means than persuasion — the law 
must interfere in the most energetic manner. With those 
states alreadv admitted into the union, we ouo;;ht not to in- 
terfcrc. By common consent, we have committed this system 
to the care of their lefiislaturcs. Those of the original states 
that tolerated slavery had suffered in a common cause, and ac- 
tuated by motives ofprudcnce. and a desire of conciliation, 
the sage framcrs of the Constitution avoided the expression of 
a direct prohibition of slavery. They designated 1808 as the 
period when the right to introduce new slaves into the union 
should be surrendered by the state legislatures into the hand.'i 
of Congress. 

The same motives of prudence and patriotism still prevent 
our attempting to disturb the constitutional arrangement re- 
specting slavery. We are obligated to leave the alleviation 
and extirpation of that system to the wisdom and philanthropy 
of the legislatures of the slave states. The efforts of bene- 
volent, enlightened men, may in time correct the evils, if not 
entirely destroy the system. But, say our opponents, if the 
evil is committed to the care of the legislatures of the states 
already admitted, why not give the same power to the legis- 
latures of future states? Because, i:i new stales the number 
of slaves is small, and it is better to crush the evil in its com- 
mencement ; to pull up the sapling before its roots have taken 
such strong hold as to bring the earth away wiUi them. Be- 
sides, in j)lain truth, this subject cannot be safely trusted to 
slave holders. Few of them will voluntarily relinquish that 
profit which is obtained from the uncompensated labour of 
slaves : they feel interested in the continuance of slavery, and 
experience proves that they will not exert much influence 
against if. 

In every southern state except Maryland, the slaves have 
increased in proportion to the increase of the whites. This 
has been invari.irily the case where a majority of the electors 
had on inlercst in their I ^bour : while in the middle ar:''' 



15 

eastern slates, wlwrc the electors had no private interest to 
bias their minds, and could impartially decide upon the 
question, laws have been enacted against slavery, and it has 
gradually passed away. But all our eiideavouis to extirpate 
slavery are in vain, unless you prevent its introduction into 
new states. You muai stop the spreading of the cancer be- 
fore you can convert the diseased parts into sound tlesh. We 
deceive ourselves in saying, that by spreading this slave po- 
pulation over a larger extent of country, we thin their num- 
bers and mitigate the evils of their condition. When slaves 
are wanted, ihey will be imported ; j)cnalties and revenue ofii- 
ccrs are too weak obstacles to the ini[iortation of an article 
the consumption of which is permitted. Neither is it true, 
that the number of slaves in the present slave states will be 
reduced by migration to new countries. The new state is 
settled by the emigrant, but the princi])le of population soon 
supplies the deficiency in the mother cou.ntry. 

Men increase according to the means of subsistence ; dis- 
ease and emigration may thin their numbers for a few years, 
but this principle soon repairs the mischief and stocks the 
soil with as many inhabitants as it will support. Witness an- 
cient Germany, which was continually pouring forth its 
swarms from this never-failing source : and at the present 
time the number of emigrants from Ireland do not depopulate 
it. I do not doubt that slaves would be sent into Missouri, 
for sale, and the planters would be careful to keep up the sup- 
ply. Slaves would be raised expressly for market, and we 
should soon hear of planters who kept negroes exclusively for 
breedino-. The painful feelings of children torn from their 
mothers, and husbands for ever separated from their wives, 
would be lightly regarded by men who would not and do not 
scruple to sell the otTspring of their own loins to perpetual 
slavery, that they may riot upon the proceeds of their own flesh 
and blood. 

Shall we then trust the abolition of this system in the new 
States, to the wisdom and policy of planters. God forbid ; 
unless, as gentlemen say, the constitution commands it. It is 
as easy to exclaim that a measure is unconstitutional, as it is 
to cry out, mad dog. Indeed it is quite common with some, 
when they do not know what to urge against a law. to call it 
unconstitutional. Now, though there may be no objection to 
check the precipitate passage of an act in this manner, yet at 
least, when ready to listen, we have a right to expect that 
some arguments will be adduced to prove the unconstitution- 
ality of the law — to show us how or why it is unconstitutional. 
Fori must confess that, upon the fii-st reflection, it appears 
strange that a great and enlightened people, who make an in- 
N'.nimetit, " in order to form a more perfect union, cstablisli 



16 

justice, ensure domestic trarsquillity, provide for the common 
dercnce, promote the general welfare, and secure the blessings , 

of liberty to themselves and posterity,'' should insert a clause, .| 

that ensures the extension, free from the control of govern- " 

ment, of a system which disunites, violates the fundamental 
rules of justice, disturbs domestic tranquillity, weakens the 
public arm, demoralizes and impoverishes the people, and 
finally denies the blessings of liberty to one sixth of the 
whole population. 

Prove to us that we have so blindly frustrated our inten- 
tions, and we will correct the error. Show us that clause 
in the constitution, and we will amend it. 

No, say the shiftless advocates of slavery, show us the 
clause in the constitution, authorizing Congress to impose this 
restriction. We contend that it has no right to impose any 
conditions. Let us try this principle by stating no very im- 
probable case. Suppose that this constitution had a clause, 
which allowed a citizen who had accepted of a pension from 
the king of England, to hold any office of trust or profit in the 
state government, or which excused the Judges from taking 
an oath to support the constitution of the United States, or 
which allowed the privileges of citizens of Missouri only to 
the citizens of 12 States of the 21 ; would not Congress have 
power to strike out the clause, as being contrary to the federal 
constitution ? 

Or suppose that the District of Maine should insert in its 
constitution an article protecting fugitive slaves : how cla- 
morous would these men be until Congress exerted that power 
which they now deny it. 

These cases show the extreme absurdity of denying Con- 
gress the power of imposing conditions on states applying for 
admission into the Union, and compelling them to conform to 
the provisions of the constitution, and to republican princi- 
ples. The constitution itself recognises the power of Con- 
gress to impose conditions on new states, in that article which 
declares, that " new states may be admitted into the Union," 
i. e. at the discretion of Congress. 

But Congress may insist on very unreasonable conditions. 
If such a ease should happen, though the character of that 
body is a suflicient safeguard against any improper restric- 
tions being imposed, the petition must lie over, until the peo- 
ple send reasonable men to represent their interests. 

The truth is, that no state can claim admission into the 
union, unless the right be granted to it by some stipulation or 
treaty. 

The only stipulation relative to this territoiy is an article 
in the treaty by which France ceded Louisiana to the United 
States. Missouri is part of that country, and claims the bene- 



17 

fit of that article, which declares, •' tliai the iiihabitanii. of the 
territory shall be incorporated in the union of the United 
States, and admitted as soon as possible, according to the 
principles of the federal constitution, to the enjoyment of all 
rights, advantages, and immunities, of citizens of the United 
States ; and in the mean time they shall be maintained and 
protected in the free enjoyment of their liberty, property, and 
the religion which they profess." 

Therefore the decision of this question, whether Congress 
has the power to impose this restriction, depends upon the 
construction of this article. The latter clause refers to Lou- 
isiana, before the inhabitants shall be admitted into the union. 
It is said that this clause, protecting the property of the inha- 
bitants, secures to them the right of slave-holding. This can- 
not be' true, unless the word property be so construed as to 
include the interest of owners in their slaves, which is contra- 
ry to the general construction of treaties, the words negroes 
or slaves being invariably used in stipulations referring to 
them. Moreover, this clause manifests a knowledge of the 
provisions of the federal constitutions, by the representatives 
of Louisiana in this treaty. 

We must, therefore, conclude, that the said territory was 
ceded to the United States so that the government could legis- 
late for it, and regulate it according to the constitution. By 
the 3d section of the 4th article, Congress has power to dis- 
pose of, and make all, needful rules and regulations respect- 
ing thel territory of the United States. Consequently it had 
the power to determine what regulations were needful, and 
actually did determine and make said rules for the govern- 
ment of Louisiana. If at that time it had thought it necessary 
to prohibit slavery in said country, it had the constitutional 
power, and could have done it consistently with the obliga- 
tions of the above treaty. 

But admitting what is not true, that by this claim the power 
of slave holding in Louisiana was designedly placed beyond 
the control of Congress. It was intended to apply only while 
Louisiana continued a territory. The words " in the mean 
time," in the original " en attendant," show that some time 
was des'gncd, when this clause would be unnecessary. By 
referring to the first part of the article, it appears that that 
time was understood, when they should be admitted according 
to the principles of the federal cunstiliction, to the enjoyment of 
the rights, advantages, and immunities of citizens of the U. S. 
No doubt exists that by complying with the constitution they 
are entitled to be admitted to the said rights and immunities. 
This phrase undoubtcdjy means those privileges that ".re 
':oramon to all the citi^'ui) of this republic, not those depcnU- 

C 



1^ 

uig up6n state laws. For these are different in different staife^v 
The militia officers of other states, when residing in New- 
York, are exempt from military duty, except as officers. In 
some other states this privilege is not granted. It is the pri- 
vilege, and a great and glorious one, of a c itizen of Massachusetts, 
that his security and comfort cannot be destroyed by a slave 
population. This privilege is denied to the citizens of 
Georgia. On this very subject the laws of different states 
grant different rights. Therefore they are not federal but 
state rights, and the inhabitants of Missouri may be admitted 
to the enjoyment of the rights, advantages, and immunities of 
citizens of the U. S. with or without the power of slave holding. 

We must therefore inquire if, according to the principles of 
the federal constitution, Congi-ess can impose that identical 
condition. Or in other words, is slave holding consistent 
\vith the pHrlciples of that constitution. Besides the article 
giving to congress a discretionary power over the admission 
of new members to ihe union, the 4th article of the same sec- 
tion compels the U. S. to guaranty to each stale a republican 
form of government. If Maine or Michigan should present 
a constitution securing the right of suffrage to a certain num- 
ber of land holders and their lineal descendants only, every 
person would justify congress in rejecting it as being aristo- 
cratic. Does not this constitution fall under the same objec- 
tion, with this difference, that the violation of right is greater. 

It is surprising that gentlemen should have objected, that a 
prohibition of slavery is contrary to th^ principles of the 
federal constitution. As has been justly observed. The mas- 
ter principle — the foundation stone of that instrument is equal 
rights, not of states, but of men. The people formed that 
compact in order to perfect union, establish justice, ensure 
domestic tranquillity, provide for the common defence, pro- 
mote the general welfare, and secure the blessings of liberty 
to themselves and posterity. These were their objects ; and 
slavery, so far from promoting, is inconsistent with, and sub- 
versive of, them all. 

Why then was slavery permitted in any of the original 
thirteen states ? Because at the time of proposing the consti- 
tution, the enemies of liberty were active ; the confederation 
was at the point of dissolution ; clashing interests had ren- 
dered many of its members hostile to each other ; and so 
many obstacles presented themselves to the formatioii of a 
government, that it was agreed to insert a clause permitting 
each state to regulate slavery, within its own boundaries, 
until the year 1808. This very limit shewed the opinion of 
the framers of that instrument, and proves that they yielded 
only to the most urgent necessity. They wisely gave up th^ 
liberty of part for the good of a greater part. 



19 

The history of those times explains the inconsistency of 
permitting slavery under a constitution which was protessedly 
formed to secure the rights of men. The whole sj^irit of this 
^rand charter is hostile to oppression and slavery of any kind ; 
but peculiar circumstances rendered it necessary to restrain the 
application of its principles in the slave-holding states. 

Congress has since given its sanction to this view of the 
principles of the Constitution. 

The prohibition of slavery was made a condition of the 
admission of Ohio, Illinois, and Indiana into the union. Ken- 
tucky being part of Virginia, was entitled to admission upon 
the same terms as the state from which it was separated. 
The territory comprehendiog the states of Tennessee, Missis- 
sippi, and Alabama was ceded to the United States by North 
Carolina and Georgia upon the express condition, that Con- 
gress should not jirohibit slavery in said territory. From this 
short statement of the practice of the national Legislature, it 
appears that whenever Congress had the power to prohibit 
slavery, it acted as if the principles of the federal constitu- 
tion required it so to do, except in the erection of Louisiana 
into a state in 1812 without this prohibition. If they reflect 
upon the situation of the country at that time, our opponent 
will not draw any conclusion from that fact in supjiort of 
their cause. At the commencement of a war wiih a [powerful 
and enterprizing enemy, a territory inhabited by people fo- 
reign in their feelings, language, and habits, and not yet re- 
conciled to their new situation, applied for admission into the 
union. To have insisted at that juncture upon j)rohibiting 
slavery among those whose habits rendered them dependent 
upon slaves for comfort, would have dissatisfied the inhabit- 
ants, and ])erha|)S have thrown them into the arms of the 
enemy. Many important conditiuiii. however, were annexed 
to the constitution, and the regulations made by Congress 
were considered as suflicient to secure the establishment of 
civil and religious liberty. The prohibition of negro slavery 
would undoubtedly have been added to the comlitions, if the 
number of the slaves, the habits of the people, and the situ- 
ation of the country had not rendered it ex})edient to consign 
the evil to the care of the state Legislature. 

The practice of Congress, then, has been, when some 
compact or paramount necessity did not prevent the prohibi- 
tion of slavery, to compel the state applying for admission 
to conform to the principles of the federal constitution, — ihar 
is, to those of civil and religious freedom ; and consequentlv 
slavery has been abolished in those new stales, over wllo^e 
constitutions Congress could, with good faith, and a proper 
regard for the welfare of the union exercise such power. 



20 

Of course, this territory not being entitled to admission 
except according to the principles of the federal constitution, 
is subject to such a prohibiting power; and if Congress shall 
decide that the necessity which would authorise a suspension 
of those principles does not exist, must submit to the propos- 
ed condition. 

It is not pretended that any such necessity exists. The 
republic is flourishing, and at peace with the whole world. 
Tihe number of slaves in Missouri is small ; only one sixtii 
of the whole population, there being at the census of 1810 
but 3618 ; and the white inhabitants since that time chiefly 
emigrating from other parts of the union, lead us to believe 
that the disproportion between the number of freemen and 
slaves is at present still greater. If under these circumstan- 
ces Congress is compelled to tolerate slavery in that state 
we deceive ourselves in boasting that our institutions are 
favourable to freedom. 

It has been said that this condition would be unavailing, 
for that the citizens of Missouri if they inserted this clause in 
their constitution, would amend it the amount they were ad- 
mitted into the union, and abolish this very provision against 
slavery. 

The principles of slave holders may permit and justify 
such a breach of faith ; we had thought it inconsistent with 
the ordinary rules of morality, which prohibit injustice, cruel- 
ty and perfidy. Such common rules are too mean and low 
for the high minded aristocratic planter ; he only acknow- 
ledges the authority of a nice gentlemanly sense of honour 
and dispenses with these vulgar precepts of good faith and 
honesty. But unfortunately, the members ©f the judiciary 
respect these vulgar precepts, and would undoubtedly declare 
such a revocation imconstitutional and void. 

Then this state is restricted in its liberty. Undoubtedly 
It is : and very properly restricted. It is deprived of the 
liberty of acting unjustly. Suppose that the inhabitants of 
Missouri were robbers and freebooters ; that instead of subsist- 
ing upon the produce of the labour of slaves, they obtained a 
livelihood by levying blackmail upon the citizens of the ad- 
joining states, and that the sacred right of {plundering their 
neighbours was recognized by the constitution. When they 
applied for admission into the union, would not Congress 
have a right to make it a condition of their admission, that 
theft should be prohibited. Nobody can deny it : any con- 
dition prohibiting the exercise of an unlawful power may be 
imposed, and the only question that remains, is : Is it ex- 
pedient ? Some have told us that if this restriction be persist- 
ed in, it will be disregarded, and that the citizens of Missouri 



21 * 

will form a separate independent power, and oj)enly defy the 
power of Congress. Such threats are childish and vain. There 
is but one answer to them all. If factious men array them- 
selves against the laws, government knows how to compel 
obedience. I proceed to consider the question of expediency. 
With regard to the state itself, the arguments already urged 
in favour of the prohibition, are strong and conclusive. But 
there arc some relating to the other states, which give addi- 
tional force to the conviction, that the restriction ought to be 
imposed. To secure the establishment of the Constitution, 
it was conceded to the slave states, that three-fifths of that 
property claimed in slaves should be represented in the po-* 
pular branch of C'ongress. The Constitution intended that 
this greater portion of power in the slave stales should be 
accompanied by a greater share of direct taxes, in proportion 
to the number of freemen. But, in progress of time, the. 
whole revenue of the nation was derived from indirect taxa- 
tion, and so great an inequality is caused by that very pro- 
vision which was intended to proportion representation to 
taxation, that the ten slave-holding states, containing a popu- 
lation of 2,272,000 free persons, and yielding a revenue of 
$8,802,381, ^6,000000 less than the revenue of New-York 
alone, send 19 more representatives than the same number 
of freemen in the middle or eastern states. Although in the 
states where slavery is prohibited, only one representative is 
allowed for every 35,000, yet in South Carolina every 24.41G 
persons are represented by a member in Congress. This 
inequality of power is greater when two states arc compared 
together. Virginia, vviih a free population 118,641 less than 
that of MassacJiusetts, not yielding one-fiflh of the revenue, 
sends three more representatives, and has more than one- 
eighth greater power in Congress. This argument is not ad- 
duced to j)ersuade Congress to take from the slave states their 
constitutional privileges. 

This disproportionate power was conceded in a spirit of 
conciliation, to men descended from the same ancestors, pro- 
tessing the same religion, and who had poured out their blood 
in defence of a common cause, with tlic inhabitants of those 
states wliere slavery did not exist. The obligations of good 
faith prevent our disturbintj this constitutional arrangement: 
but a prof)er regard for our own rights prohibit any further 
concessions. 

The reasons which prompted us to make them in former 
instances, do not apply to the present case ; and to grant this 
unequal power to this new state, would be doing injustice to 
many old members of the union. 

Again ; by prohibiting slavery in Missouri, th« slave states 



♦ 22 

being surrounded by bodies of freemen, will be in less danger 
from ii- as ion or insurrection. The western frontier, which 
is beyond the immediate protection of the eastern and middle 
States, will be strengthened, and revolts among the slaves 
more easily quelled by the presence of a free state in this ex- 
posed part of the union. 

Slavery itself will be more under the dominion of religion 
and benevolence, when its limits are determined. Philan- 
thropists no longer disheartened by the undefined magnitude 
of the evil, will earnestly endeavour to extirpate it. 

The disproportion between the number of slaves and free- 
men will every day become greater. A free population will 
be extended over this boundless territory, and in the present 
slave states, enlightened men, encouraged by the then compa- 
rative small number of negroes, will dare to emancipate and 
instruct them. The influence of example, every day becom- 
ing more powerful, will silence the clamours of those slave- 
holders, who are actuated only by avarice, and the legisla- 
tures in the slave states will successively give their aid to 
the cause of freedom, by gradually emancipating the blacks, 
until this cruel system is entirely destroyed. Then may we 
truly boast of our free institutions. Then will this great 
western empire, inhabited by men possessing equal rights, 
be emphatically called the laud of liberty. 

Discontents and revolts will no more be engendered by the 
iU-treatment and oppression of this class of its inhabitants, 
but all orders and conditions of men live peaceably and hap- 
pily under one general government. 

Statesmen of America, it belongs to you to decide whether 
freedom or slavery shall exist in this vast unoccupied territo- 
ry : whether its acquisition by the United States shall be 
deemed a blessing or a curse. 

The reputation, the welfare, the security, and I may add 
the permanency of the republic, all depend upon your deci- 
sion of this great question. The attention of your constitu- 
ents is turned upon you. They await with trembling anxiety 
the result of this contest between freedom and slavery, of 
which you are the arbiters. No pride of opinion, no love of 
popularity, no attachment to local interests, no unworthy pas- 
sion or prejudice, will justify an improper choice of parties 
10 the country and to the world. Let reason and patriotism 
influence your conduct ; decide according to the principles 
of the constitution, and we do not fear the result. 

MARCUS, 



* 



V 



II 



'V 



r 






'^^ 






